_________________
Travis

In John 14:16, Jesus promised that the disciples would be left with 'another Comforter'.

The question, could be asked, "Another, other than whom ? " Jesus, right ? To me this suggests, that just as the Father is distinct in personality from the Son- though both are God...so is the Holy Spirit.


"16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."

In Jesus,
John

by MyVeryHeart on 2010/9/24 15:56:31

by live4jc on 2010/9/24 19:58:23


In John 14:16, Jesus promised that the disciples would be left with 'another Comforter'.

The question, could be asked, "Another, other than whom ? " Jesus, right ? To me this suggests, that just as the Father is distinct in personality from the Son- though both are God...so is the Holy Spirit.


"16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."

In Jesus,
John

------------------------------------------------------------

These verses will now be looked into more closely (study) Jn. 14.15? - 16+.

Note v. 17 you qoute:
"17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive"

Jesus is the truth.
Doesn't this mean that this might just be saying, "Even the Spirit of Christ Jesus; whom the world cannot recieve?"



Think about this as well.
This prophecy begins with Jesus saying to Believe in Him as God, and that even though He's leaving, he comes again to recieve us unto Himself, so that we can be with Him. (Col. 3.1-4)



Where do you see from scripture that the Holy Spirit, the only One Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of Christ, is not the spirit of Jesus Christ?


Shalom,
g

Planetheus,
You claim that the fullness of the Godhead does not dwell in the Son separately from the Father. The same applies to the Holy Spirit. Thus, you do not believe in the Trinity, a description which simply means that the fullness of the Godhead (deity) dwells in the Father, that the fullness of the Godhead (deity) dwells in the Son, and that the fullness of the Godhead (deity) dwells in the Holy Spirit, each distinctly from one another, yet one in being. You don’t believe there is any real relational distinction between the three, but that it is really just one. However, you must make sense of the passages where Jesus (the Son of God) speaks to the Father, and speaks of the Holy Spirit. In order to do so, you claim that in the bodily incarnation Jesus left his position as Son of God, to take a mere position as Son of Man. In saying that, you necessarily deny that the fullness of deity dwelt in Jesus Christ while He walked this earth in bodily form. You may try mental gymnastics to get out of the implications of your theology, but the fact remains that the inevitable implications are that it was not the Son of God who gave His life for us on the cross; that it was not the fullness of the Godhead whose life was given for us at the cross, by which we should be reconciled to God and live. If you claim that the Son of God died for us on the cross, I gladly welcome you in the camp of the Trinitarians! You must choose between the two: 1) Either the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus during his incarnation on earth distinctly from the Father in heaven; 2) or it is not God who gave his life for us on the cross because the Father was still in heaven when this event happened on earth.

If you assert that Jesus is normally not distinct from the Father, and that when He came into the world, He separated Himself from the Father, it necessarily implies that He was not fully God while on earth. If the full Godhead depends on being united with the Father, then Jesus was not truly and fully God when walking this earth. This means that God did not give Himself for us on the cross, but rather a mere man (though you may claim some mystical phenomenon using mental gymnastics). You may say that Jesus is the Messiah, but the Christ you are presenting is not the real Savior – not God Himself – but a mere man, an insufficient and inadequate Christ. Claiming that right now Christ is united in deity with the Father doesn’t make things okay, because the Christ that you tell people to put their trust in, is the Christ who walked this earth and hung on the cross. Is that perfect and crucified Christ really the Son of God, God Himself with us, God giving his life for us; or is that Christ crucified a mere man doing God’s work? Think about this. Don’t try some mental gymnastics here, but simply think about the implications of your theology. This is serious.

Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" Jesus answered him, "Because I said to you, 'I saw you under the fig tree,' do you believe? You will see greater things than these." And he said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." (John 1:49-51)
…do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (John 10:36)
These passages (John 1:49-51; John 10:36) plainly reveal that Jesus was the Son of God while walking this earth separately from the Father in heaven, and that He was also the Son of Man at the same time.

For in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell [that is, during his bodily incarnation on earth], and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:19-20)

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness…” (Genesis 1:26)

You choose between John 8:32 and 2 Timothy 3:7
See, I have set before you life and death...

It looks like we are going to have to take this step by step.

by Renoncer on 2010/9/25 6:53:15

Planetheus,
You claim that the fullness of the Godhead does not dwell in the Son separately from the Father.
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
Anything seperated from another part of itself does not make it not itself. It is merely not itself in complete fulness.




__________________________________________________________
R:
The same applies to the Holy Spirit. Thus, you do not believe in the Trinity, a description which simply means that the fullness of the Godhead (deity) dwells in the Father, that the fullness of the Godhead (deity) dwells in the Son, and that the fullness of the Godhead (deity) dwells in the Holy Spirit, each distinctly from one another, yet one in being.
------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity means "three" (in) "unity", "one" and/or "united...
not, "the fullness of the Godhead."

...and no, i do not believe in the trinity.
The Bible does not state or teach this. Catholicism and most Protestantism does.
__________________________________________________________




R:
You don’t believe there is any real relational distinction between the three, but that it is really just one.
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
Now, where has this been written in text from here?

I do not believe there is just one.

The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son; but where does it say that the Son is in the Spirit or the Father?

God is essentially two different persons, the Father and the Son.


The Spirit of God is the spirit of Christ Jesus the Lord.
There is one advocate and mediator between God and man.
__________________________________________________________
R:





However, you must make sense of the passages where Jesus (the Son of God) speaks to the Father, and speaks of the Holy Spirit. In order to do so, you claim that in the bodily incarnation Jesus left his position as Son of God, to take a mere position as Son of Man.
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
Show where the Bible says any different.
__________________________________________________________





R:
In saying that, you necessarily deny that the fullness of deity dwelt in Jesus Christ while He walked this earth in bodily form.
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
Where it says that the fulness of deity dwells in Jesus bodily is not speaking about his life on earth. Look at the context of that passage in Collosians 1 and reconsider. You will not find any other passages confirming what you are proposing.

What it does say is that Jesus emptied himself of all that was God in becoming a man.

As stated in PMs, this does not mean that He was not God. What it does mean is that He was a man who emptied Himself from all that He was (God) before He came to earth.
__________________________________________________________

R:
You may try mental gymnastics to get out of the implications of your theology,
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
You might try giving some solid Bible verses to what you are proposing. At present, call it mental gymnastics if you will, however, if you were to give a few verses confirming the points you are saying, i'de be glad to accomodate in like fashion
(though this is usually done as well).
____________________________________________________________





R:
but the fact remains that the inevitable implications are that it was not the Son of God who gave His life for us on the cross; that it was not the fullness of the Godhead whose life was given for us at the cross, by which we should be reconciled to God and live.
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
These are not the inevitable implications.

It was Jesus, Son of God as the Son of Man, perfectly without sin who offered up His body and blood for the life and redemption of the world.
After this, though already the Son of God as a man, the Father showed He was pleased with this offering of man to God as the perfect substitute of man --(representing man to God).

Just because Jesus chose not to function as God on earth does not make Him any less God.
(We humans do not even have that option.)
____________________________________________________________





R:
If you claim that the Son of God died for us on the cross, I gladly welcome you in the camp of the Trinitarians!
------------------------------------------------------------
p:
i am not a trinitarian . . . and please read former responses from here in the thread previously mentioned on this thread.
__________________________________________________________




R:
You must choose between the two: 1) Either the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus during his incarnation on earth distinctly from the Father in heaven;
----------------------------------------------------------
P:
How about this?
You tell me how anything on earth can be full and empty at the same time.
__________________________________________________________





R:

2) or it is not God who gave his life for us on the cross because the Father was still in heaven when this event happened on earth.
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
God --(emptied of Himself), as a man.
He gave His life on the cross representing humanity to God because he came and represented, and always does represent, God to man.


<><><>
Jesus did not tabernacle on earth as God.
Jesus came to earth
emptying himself of Godhood,
as (God became) man
in the person of Jesus Christ...
to redeem man
(not God).

God did not have to come to earth as God.
(God was not the one needing to be saved.)


Do you understand the meaning and purpose behind sacrafice and/or covenant?


God Bless you brother,
non-trinitarian to trinitarian,
g

p.s. i was saved into a relationship with Jesus Christ and not any pet doctrine per se. i serve Him because of this relationship and not because i misinterpret or interpret the scriptures.

Renouncer,

This is where the difficult with you regarding me seems to be.

You think that i am saying that Because God emptied Himself he is no longer Himeslf.

After God (Jesus Christ) emptied Himself of all that was attributed essentially as part of himself, he was still himself.



Hope this helps.


Shalom,
g

Boy, this got ugly fast.

Brethren, our primary evidence as believers ought to be our "love for one another". It bothers me greatly that, though we heavily emphasize "FRUIT-BEARING", we are so often devoid of the one fruit that must be the greatest evidence of our reality. Just a thought to ponder.

Hence, it is very troubling to me to see a forum with fellow-brethren flame-throwing and spending hours of their valuable time to "defend" two sides of something. Something that is, at its very simplest, a doctrine that we can never fully understand.

"When you read any great mystery, recorded in holy Writ, you are to prostrate your Reason to Divine Revelation."
-Thomas Ken

Please, brothers, do we have the utter audacity and vanity to feel that we have a full enough grasp of the eternal God to explain Him in a few posts on an online forum?

Frankly, I don't see much prostration occurring here.

Phanetheus, I appreciate your openness of heart, but a persistent leaning to the works of the Law is evident. Your views of the Godhead seem to be symptomatic of what appears to be the larger problem of a "flat-Bible" understanding. Perhaps others have brought this to you before; I don't know.

I fear for you, in your seeming to emphasize that Sunday worship and other things are an aspect of the "harlot church". This is classical Adventist doctrine, and has its roots in the ecstatic movements of the 19th century.

I know, I'm getting a little off subject!

The Old Testament has a valid place in the Canon of Scripture, and Paul addresses the subject numerous times in the New Testament... especially the books of Galatians and Hebrews (please, everyone, don't skewer me for hinting that I think Paul wrote Hebrews! :)). These events and laws are examples that point us to the New Testament consummation (1 Corinthians 10:11; Galatians 3:24,25).

An example of this "consummation concept" is the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" doctrine in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:24). This was an example of God's justice, and was commanded to show us His unswerving Truth. But, Jesus told us in Matthew 5:38-42 that we are to "resist not evil". This is one of many, many examples of Old Testament commands that were clarified and put in their proper context by Jesus, our Messiah!

I feel the above similarities to Adventism and neo-Judaisim clearly puts some of your conclusions on the Godhead under suspicion.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
-Colossians 2:16-19

Let us beware of being vainly puffed up, thinking we have the answers to things that we have not seen or fully understood.

Based on this Scripture, another danger I see in this forum is that we are placing more emphasis on our personal experiences than what the plain Word of God teaches, and what our trusted brethren counsel us. It is good to decide things for ourselves personally, but it must also be tempered by taking counsel from others (Proverbs 11:14). This is not the Catholic route of "Tradition First", but rather a plea to consider what each has to say before we cast it out as "anathema".

We are attempting to interpret the eternal Word of God through our own experiences, and we know that "God is true, and every man a liar". Therefore we must be extremely cautious of our own deceptive hearts (Jeremiah 17:9). Listening to counsel from other brethren is not a sign of weakness, but rather wisdom (Proverbs 9:9). Our own desires to "be right" or to "win" will cloud our judgment easily, which is why I NEED the input of my brothers.

Please, brethren, consider these cautions I bring to you in the spirit of Christ. I want us to be able to walk into eternity together with Jesus. If anyone wants to pick this post apart, that is fine with me. I have prayerfully assembled this posting, in the hopes that it will be prayerfully considered.

As for my beliefs, I personally believe that no creed yet formed adequately explains the doctrine of the Godhead/Trinity. :) I am open to considering points of view, but none yet perfectly explains the doctrine of the Godhead. I feel that, in the Scripture, there appears to be a great distinction, yet also a great unity.

Both these points of view have been very well articulated here. So you could probably say that I believe a little of each point of view, and believe that this is completely compatible. I believe that there is a clear distinction in personage and responsibilities between the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, but I also believe that they are one in essence and in person. This is why I consider it incomprehensible to the human mind.

In the science of physics, this is called the Principle of Complementarity. In essence, this Principle says that even if a given object or action appears to have opposing properties, they may indeed both be properties of the said object or action. Just because they appear to be opposite doesn't mean one or the other is untrue. We just don't understand the relationship.

For instance, God is perfectly Holy and Just, yet is also perfectly Merciful and Loving. Two extreme aspects, yet both are fully part of God without negating each other. Yet, we don't scrap and fight over that. We accept it by faith.

Call me simple, but hey, it's possible. :)

Here's another way I see it: We are made in the image of God, as we know (Genesis 1:26,27). A "person" is composed of a body (flesh), a soul (mind), and a spirit (breath of Life) (c.f. 1 Thessalonians 5:23). These are separate entities, yet none of the three exists fully as a whole person without the other. They can be separated temporarily (by death), but will one day be reunited (by the resurrection, hallelujah!)

Perhaps this is simplistic to think of ourselves as a reflection of God's existence, but it makes sense to me. It doesn't answer all my questions, but it helps me to understand Him just a little tiny bit. I just try to stand in awe of the Lord and "let my words be few".

The Lord bless each one of you in a special way today. Praise Jesus for the wonderful, wonderful salvation that is so freely offered to us! Let us rejoice in Him!

_________________
Ryan G.

stubble + hay.

fit only for the fire.